tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4695741160363491977.post1873413638055128276..comments2017-05-30T11:25:33.895-04:00Comments on Siobhan Esposito's Blog: Ten Years Later, the Haunting Murder of Phillip Esposito and Louis AllenNicholas Provenzonoreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4695741160363491977.post-88401218785125211552015-08-25T19:42:59.369-04:002015-08-25T19:42:59.369-04:00I wish there was something I could say to ease you...I wish there was something I could say to ease your pain. But I have a feeling this will not help much as it is a hard reality that is accurate.<br /><br />Your husband should not have died. But we should not have been in Iraq either. However the decision to be involved in this Iraq was made by elected officials and I have to respect that. <br /><br />In theory your husband donned a uniform to protect certain values we deem important and label American. A portion of which is the American Justice system. And this system is based on a set of rules we universally accept. And those rules state to convict a person of a charge there must be min level of proof, and that was not done in this case. I am not sure if Mr. Martinez is innocent or not. But he was aquitted in our system of courts, and these courts derive their power from folks like your husband, and I putting on a uniform and saying we will lay our lives down to defend this system. That must be respected. The system must be respected for it to work. It is the only reason the system remains powerful. <br /><br />So I am not sure looking at the system we entrust to render justice with distain and doubt and saying we want to invalidate it because it gave us a judgment we don&#39;t like honors your husbands service to his country. Invalidating that system t in-validates your husbands service and my service at the same time. <br /> <br />That being said I am sorry your husband is gone and I hope the only real memories you have left of him are the one that bring you joy and happiness. <br /><br />And not that you are reading this but Mr. Martinez you do not appear to have been a very good soldier. I hope you take the opportunity bestowed onto you to improve your life and your reputation.Tony Skalanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4695741160363491977.post-8770191604234043442015-06-10T16:31:45.841-04:002015-06-10T16:31:45.841-04:00Two of Two
You also bring up the issue of the gov...Two of Two<br /><br />You also bring up the issue of the government withholding knowledge of the plea offer from the families, as was the case here. When I put the question to the prosecutors in my interviews with them, they pointed out that as an offer to plea to second degree murder, Martinez’s offer wasn’t particularly substantive. Specifically, Martinez wasn’t admitting his murderous premeditation, and as such, they rightfully dismissed his offer as insufficient. Given the claim that Martinez planted the claymore in the window, unspooled the wire, attached the detonator, and then finally detonated the mine and threw the grenades, the idea that the crime was something other than premeditated is absurd. In my opinion, Martinez’s alleged crime was the essence of premeditation. It deserved punishment as such.<br /><br />Thus I have to ask if it would have been wise for prosecutors to reveal, before trial and to the victim’s families, that Martinez had made an offer, but an incomplete offer, and that the rules foreclosed further negotiation. Such information almost certainly would have escaped quarantine. Once public, it likely would have made a fair trial much more difficult—a fact that would have only played to Martinez’s later advantage.<br /><br />In that light, I am disinclined to support a rule that would force the government to reveal rejected plea negotiations to a victim’s family. If a plea offer is accepted by the government, victims should of course speak to its sufficiency. But if an offer has been rejected, I can only conclude that the government must be left free to exercise discretion in regards to with whom it shares such information.<br /><br />In short, I say fix the bad rule, but leave the government’s discretion intact.<br /><br />* R.C.M. 910(a)(1).<br />Nicholas Provenzohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10926131141263622350noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4695741160363491977.post-1386551947061637432015-06-10T16:31:14.232-04:002015-06-10T16:31:14.232-04:00One of Two
Thank you for your comment, Mr. Allen,...One of Two<br /><br />Thank you for your comment, Mr. Allen, and please accept my sincere condolences for the unpunished murder of your late son. Of course you are correct; Martinez offered to plead guilty to second degree murder in April of 2006. Unfortunately, in my opinion, the government was right to reject Martinez’s plea, precisely because it was an offer to plead guilty to second, and not first degree murder—a crime with a significantly more severe punishment and the crime that I think we both believe Martinez actually committed.<br /><br />The problem again rests with the law. According to the Rules of Military Courts-Martial, a defendant is barred from pleading guilty &quot;to an offense for which the death penalty may be adjudged by the court martial.&quot;* The principle is straightforward: a defendant may not plead themselves into a death sentence. If death is a possible a punishment, there must be a trial.<br /><br />It is unclear to me if the rule outright prohibited Martinez from pleading to first degree murder as such, or if it merely prohibited Martinez from pleading himself into death. It is also unclear to me if the rule would have allowed the court to waive death as punishment if the court had also been party to the agreement. <br /><br />An issue here is just who is bound by a proposed plea agreement. For example, a “two-party” plea agreement is an agreement between the government and the defendant, but not the court. In a two-party plea agreement, the court is not a party to the agreement and is not bound by the terms of the agreement. If a defendant pleads guilty, pursuant to a two-party agreement, the court may impose any sentence, notwithstanding the agreement. In contrast, a “three-party” plea agreement is one to which the state, the defendant, and the court have all agreed upon the plea, and the court has bound itself to the terms of the agreement. If Martinez’s plea had been a three-party agreement, perhaps the agreement would have avoided the problem imposed by the rule.<br /><br />And while I haven’t examined the issue in depth, it nevertheless seems pretty clear that in regards to Martinez’s plea, the negotiation was between Martinez and the government, and did not yet involve the court. As such, I do not think it was possible for Martinez to offer a plea to first degree murder under the rules. And if rule was the <i>only</i> barrier to Martinez offering to plea guilty to first degree murder (and for a sentence other than death), then the rule needs rewrite. As is, the rule seems to short-circuit the plea process in capital cases against agreements and in favor of trials. As I think we would both agree, trials are their own can of worms.<br />Nicholas Provenzohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10926131141263622350noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4695741160363491977.post-79838763877226483632015-06-10T10:18:51.464-04:002015-06-10T10:18:51.464-04:00It must be remembered that, in 2006, Martinez subm...It must be remembered that, in 2006, Martinez submitted a Request to Plead Guilty to Murder in the 2nd degree and that request was signed by both of his attorneys. The Convening Authority denied the request and the prosecution was ordered not to tell the families of my son and Capt. Esposito.<br />We have copies of said request.Robert Allenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10935790866776019525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4695741160363491977.post-70383204363559541072015-06-09T21:59:49.952-04:002015-06-09T21:59:49.952-04:00Thank you for your comment. I&#39;ll answer a coup...Thank you for your comment. I&#39;ll answer a couple of point that you bring up. You write:<br /><br />&gt;There may have been issues with HHC 42nd ID but, that&#39;s just one company out of many. The overwhelming majority members of that division performed their missions spectacularly and with great success.<br /><br />No doubt many in the 42nd Infantry performed heroically while serving in Iraq as the time of the murders. Even so, I think that the slayings of Esposito and Allen taint them as well.<br /><br />Some of course will argue that my negative moral judgement here is undeserved, but I look at the problem like this: I think that even the most honored and well respected soldier in 42nd should look at the murders with a certain sense of ownership and shame. As an American, <i>I</i> am ashamed by what happened here. I am ashamed of what Martinez did to the victims. I am ashamed of the culture that allowed it to happen. I am ashamed of the criminal justice system that failed to deliver.<br /><br />In contrast, I think it&#39;s wrong to say something akin to, &quot;Hey, that was over there, and I wasn&#39;t part of it,&quot; for such a response certainly isn&#39;t going to fix the underlying issues that drive this case.<br /><br />I also reject the &quot;hindsight is 20/20&quot; argument. Just because things are clearer looking backward doesn&#39;t imply that one should stop looking. There are lessons to learn from this case and ten years out, they still require teaching. <br /><br />But I also think it&#39;s a mistake to say that only in hindsight could one see that Martinez was trouble. It might have been hard to predict that Martinez would murder, if only because murder is so extraordinary a reaction to the pressures Martinez faced. Nevertheless, one could easily see that Martinez was well out of bounds with his threats, and here, the proper response is not &quot;hindsight is 20/20,&quot; but &quot;the standard you walk by is the standard you accept.&quot; <br /><br />Have Major General Joseph Taluto repeat that 10,000 times and maybe, just maybe, the Army will start to learn its lessons. <br /><br /> <br /><br /> Nicholas Provenzohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10926131141263622350noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4695741160363491977.post-76255349799854690232015-06-09T16:46:24.288-04:002015-06-09T16:46:24.288-04:00I was on FOB Danger and a member of the 42nd MP Co...I was on FOB Danger and a member of the 42nd MP Company. We secured that crime scene as well as Martinez. That was on of the most difficult times for my platoon as many of our members were replacements that trained with Lt. Allen and knew him well. Having to notify them of his death was gut wrenching and something that I will never forget. <br /><br />The system certainly failed the families of CPT Esposito and Lt. Allen however, I do not think that you can place blame on all members of the 42nd Division. There may have been issues with HHC 42nd ID but, that&#39;s just one company out of many. The overwhelming majority members of that division performed their missions spectacularly and with great success.<br /><br />In hindsight much more certainly could have been done to prevent these murders but, as they say hindsight is 20/20. The real blame here should be focused on the trial and more importantly on Lt. Gen Vines and how he rejected a plea bargain that had Martinez pleading guilty. Everyone knew (and still knows) that Martinez did it but, Vines rejects the plea and Martinez walks with an Honorable Discharge? Really? Talk about dereliction of duty. It&#39;s bad enough that these families had to go through the death of their loved ones and Vines adds insult to injury.<br /><br />Just my two cents. Thank you for there article. RIP brothers.....Voodoo7https://www.blogger.com/profile/07853604967250490005noreply@blogger.com